Good kids, Bad kids
At a violin camp for kids in my neck of the woods, the students divided into four groups: bad boys, bad girls, good boys, good girls. No one had to divide them. They sorted quickly based on human volition. The groups ate together, walked to and from class together, and sat together. As the week went on, the sex separation reduced, so that by the end, there were only two groups: good kids and bad kids.
The good kids paid attention in class. They spoke respectfully to teachers. They practiced at the appointed hours. They had nice table manners. They didn't use vulgar language. They were in bed somewhat early and they woke early. They were neatly dressed. The girls were modest and the boys didn't wear hats indoors. They excelled in sports.
But as this was a strings camp, what matters is how they played. The good kids all played well. They were at the top of the sections, whether violin, viola, or cello. They aced the theory exams. They all got along with each other.
The bad kids cursed. They girls dressed poorly and the boys wore hats indoors. They rolled their eyes during lectures and didn't pay attention. They whispered to each other in rehearsals. The girls gossiped constantly. The boys had baggy pants that showed their underwear, and they did idiotic things like roll up dollar bills and sniff salt as if it were cocaine. They were rude to adults.
What about the bad kids and their musicianship? Were there bad kids who were great musicians, and so could get away with their behavior because they are good at what they do? No. There was no exception. The bad kids were all bad musicians too. They occupied the lowest chairs in every section.
I'm telling you this so that you believe: the caricature of these two types of kids is not a myth.
How dare we so wickedly divide kids into such broad groups? Because it reflect reality. The divisions are quite strict even though they are unenforced. Remember the Highlights cartoon called Goofus and Gallant? Goofus was mean and rude and terrible. Gallant was nice, polite, and had ability. I recall thinking how childish this division was, an adult invention that oversimplified the world. Apparently I was wrong. It pretty much sums up the way the kid population divides itself up.
Now, think for a moment about egalitarianism, the theory that all people are equal and so the spoils of society should be equally divided among them. Do you see how this flies in the face of the daily experience of every living person? Imagine the damage that would come to the camp by evenly distributing the positions in the orchestra. The good kids would not be rewarded, and so would face a disincentive for continuing excellent behavior. The bad kids would conclude that there is no cost to being a jerk. The orchestra wouldn't sound as good, since bad players would be responsible for harder and more exposed spots.
So who would win under egalitarianism? I suppose that the winner would be the sicko powermonger who did the dividing. He or she would gain some measure of satisfaction merely from the thrill that comes from upending the natural order of things.
This individual has a name in the world in which we live: the state. If the state gets away with this, it wrecks the orchestra of society. It discourages goodness and subsidizes badness. Cultural decline defines the new reality, and there is a descent straight to the gutter. As for the state, it wins solely by its desire to do what it is designed to do: coerce people and enjoy watch people obey.
In contrast, a state of freedom and justice leads to excellence all around. Those with good behavior enjoy reward and those who behave badly must languish in their low status and incompetence. They must suffer as those with good behavior excel in all ways.
In education circles, there is a lot of talk about character education. But much of the discussion of this issue assumes institutional neutrality, as if it doesn't matter how society is structured. But the truth is that all issues of personal character are deeply influenced by institutional context. Under freedom, there is a direct relationship between success in life and goodness of character. The same is true of bad character: it will be punished in the long run. These two tendencies working together produce an interesting dynamic that seems to keep society and culture on track.
Bad kids will always be with us. What we need as a society is a framework that discourages that or, at least, doesn't provide long-term rewards for bad behavior. Similarly we must have social structures that grant people who behave properly certain advantages that arrive by virtue of their own excelling. Fortunately we do not have to build such structures. They are embedded as part of the social matrix of freedom.
I tend to be skeptical of claims that society is going to hell in a handbasket. And yet, there is a certain point here. As government grows, people become worse. The worst get on top and their bad behavior trickles down to everyone else. The good are not permitted the freedom to flower as they should. As one example, consider inflation. It rewards short-term thinking and punishes long-term thinking. It rewards debtors and punishes savers. To that extent, it degrades our characters and causes cultural decline.
Laissez-faire is sometimes seen as an "anything goes" philosophy. It might more accurately be described as a "reap what you sow" philosophy.
Comments (16)
Science
How did this article get on mises.org? On top of being poorly written, its incredibly naive and bases its conclusion on completely unscientific observations.
I'm sorry, but this really is the poorest quality article I have ever read on mises. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come.
Published: June 24, 2008 2:09 PM
Matt
"Science" is mistaken. This post is fascinating.
Published: June 24, 2008 2:17 PM
Francisco Torres
Science,
On top of being poorly written, its incredibly naive and bases its conclusion on completely unscientific observations.
Exactly why do you say the article is naive? What makes it naive? Also, the author never intended for his article to be a scientific thesis, but his informed opinion.
If you can provide scientific proof that people are exactly the same, please do so.
Jeff,
As government grows, people because worse.
I think you meant to say "become"
Published: June 24, 2008 2:19 PM
Jake
To Science,
Nobody is standing with a gun against your head forcing you to read Mises articles.
You're welcome to leave. Go read some fiction.
Published: June 24, 2008 2:28 PM
BlackSheep
Science, this is a syndicated blog, and the article is of a philosophical nature. Of course, there's not two kinds of people: good and evil. The author is making the point that as the fruits of our actions are removed from us, we get punished for trying to be independent and serve others, while bad decisions are subsidized.
Published: June 24, 2008 2:31 PM
Stephane
I recommend Judith R. Harris' book : The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. It has a nice discussion of the peer effect and group behavior (I remember her criticizing The Lord of the flies). And it does provide some basis for J.Tucker's provocative observation. But if correct, I have no idea how her theory works out in a welfare state.
Published: June 24, 2008 3:16 PM
Smithity
Who knew there were so many bad girls at violin camp? Makes me wish I had gone.
Published: June 24, 2008 3:34 PM
Alexander Meyer
I absolutely agree with this article. Instead of offering incentives to become better,more productive and more succesful government rewards unproductive people who live on the cost of others.
I hope that we, the libertarians, will focus on private charity in the near future and try to explain the citizens, why private charity is more efficient and why we think that private charity will work.
Published: June 24, 2008 4:19 PM
mikey
A propos of this topic please read Life at the Bottom
by Theodore Dalrymple.
Published: June 24, 2008 4:49 PM
Christiana Horn
As a music teacher and string player, I have seen the truth behind the example. I have also seen the disincentive principle at work when the better players are forcibly placed with the non-motivated players as an effort to "motivate" the bad players. The usual result is discouragement and disincentive for the good players. Excellence should be rewarded, not punished!
Published: June 24, 2008 8:07 PM
Telpeurion
I have observed that it is the arrogant, obnoxious, cruel, and evangelical types that perform best in public schools...
And Mr. Tucker, there are always exceptions in human events - Isn't that what Mises' point was?
Published: June 24, 2008 8:18 PM
Christopher Peters
Science,
The point of the article was to draw analogy, not to make any scientific points. Excellent article.
Published: June 24, 2008 10:42 PM
Brad
But let's also see the opposite when bad players are rewarded simply for being good at everything else - in other words mediocre people being rewarded for playing the game. The main example provided works assuming that high standards are maintained at all times. It is when the decision makers become so blind to the ultimatley goal that form takes over from function. That's when the "bad" kids NEED to shake up the establishment. I've seen all too many times good kids being crucified over tangential formalities. My own example - in many courses in high school couldn't get grades above average, but toddle off to college and get high marks. Could it have something to do with institutional bias? Basically, SOMEONE has to decide and allocate the chairs, and sometimes one needs to decide which comes first, the bad kids or inept leaders.
Published: June 25, 2008 8:38 AM
Marilyn Steffen
The bureaucrats in the gov't schools very carefully brainwash most of the "bad kids" to be bad. I watched it in MN, CO, AZ and NM.
My family and I went through hell in those schools.
You might read Poison Drops:
The report (Poison Drops) to the senate in 1885, said that gov't school states had higher rates of crime, pauperism, mental illness, and suicide than private school states, and the longer they had gov't schools the higher the rates were
I see poison drops is back online
at:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=A0VDAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22poison+drops%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=OtAI59EnXg&sig=fCcgYZYARFptb-grvpzadsvRVBI#PPA2,M1
Published: June 25, 2008 12:20 PM
Vedran Vuk
Good kids, bad kids, great article
Published: June 25, 2008 12:39 PM
David
Interesting, simple analogy. Maybe too simple. I know a lot of good people who've paid a lot of dues because folks masquerading as "good people" cause problems.
Wish the laws of nature could prevent the bad from corrupting.
Published: June 25, 2008 8:37 PM